bandlab_capabilitiesCheck BandLab API settings, write permissions, request pacing, and edit limits to diagnose why a mix operation was refused.
Reports the API base, whether writes are enabled, the request pacing, and the inferred value ranges the edit engine enforces. Useful for diagnosing a refusal.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this as a read operation. The description adds substantive context by enumerating what it reports (API base, write-enablement, pacing, value ranges), which explains the tool's overall behavior beyond the bare annotation. No contradiction detected.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded ('Reports...') and the secondary usage hint is appended concisely. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a no-parameter introspection tool, the description is complete enough: it lists all reported aspects and a hint for a common use case. The lack of an output schema is not a significant gap since it's a capabilities report, but the exact format is unspecified, which is acceptable at this complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description correctly avoids any parameter explanation since none exist, and the schema (empty properties) already covers everything. No further semantics are needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Reports') and the exact content (API base, writes enabled, pacing, value ranges). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'bandlab_whoami' (identity) and 'bandlab_list_songs' (queries) by focusing on server capabilities and limits.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly suggests a use case ('useful for diagnosing a refusal'), giving clear context for when to invoke it. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the purpose is well-scoped among siblings, so we credit the actionable hint.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.